May 23, 2011

Perceptions of reverse racism on the increase

Whites believe that they are replacing blacks as the primary victims of racial discrimination in contemporary America, according to a new study from researchers at Tufts University's School of Arts and Sciences and Harvard Business School. The findings, say the authors, show that America has not achieved the "post-racial" society that some predicted in the wake of Barack Obama's election.

Both whites and blacks agree that anti-black racism has decreased over the last 60 years, according to the study. However, whites believe that anti-white racism has increased and is now a bigger problem than anti-black racism.

Whites See Racism as a Zero-Sum Game That They Are Now LosingMichael I. Norton and Samuel R. Sommers

Abstract

Although some have heralded recent political and cultural developments as signaling the arrival of a postracial era in America, several legal and social controversies regarding “reverse racism” highlight Whites’ increasing concern about anti-White bias. We show that this emerging belief reflects Whites’ view of racism as a zero-sum game, such that decreases in perceived bias against Blacks over the past six decades are associated with increases in perceived bias against Whites—a relationship not observed in Blacks’ perceptions. Moreover, these changes in Whites’ conceptions of racism are extreme enough that Whites have now come to view anti-White bias as a bigger societal problem than anti-Black bias.

I'm trully baffled at how often I've hear white men being capable of complaining about "reverse racism" but at the same time white men seem incapable of pointing out "reverse sexism" or more appropriately sexism towards men.

I get that they are cases of racism towards whites such as assuming whites are racist, affirmative action, and what not but the favoritism towards blacks is very small when it is ever there. Its also basically inconsequential because the situation for blacks is not very good. Most white men don't have to worry about competition from blacks when it comes to higher education or better jobs.

But when it comes to women they are actually competing with men and even becoming outeducated. Furthermore young singke women outearn young single men. So any favoritism towards women has huge consequences on men, including white men. Yet I don't hear white men calling it out. There is enormous advocacy for women in the form of feminist that not only will give favoritism to women but also shame men. And men can't even speak out about this.

Men allow Arnold to be shamed as a typical powerful MALE... studies show women cheat about as much as men and frequently carry another mans baby deceptively (they just don't get caught because their female).

Men let Forbes blame their gender on the stock market crash because of testosterone and risky male behavior... actually a recent study showers people given testosterone where more fair. But still would a magazine get away with saying men are the reason for huge economic development or can you only stereotype men for something bad?

Men let tiger woods get beat by his wife... because he was a cheater who deserved it. If the situation were reversed we would all understand the woman who cheated on a psychopath husband. But tiger is a man so...

Its just sad that men are mute when it comes to their gender, and it hurts discussion.

I have lived in both the West Indies and the USA. Including attending local schools in both areas, several countries. Dated in the West Indies only.

There is a teensy bit of anti-White racism in the West Indies. I have only ever seen it in minor government clerks. Never in the general folk. Except maybe in the Bahamas.

The anti-white racism in the USA has always been palpable. Folk there who cannot even smile at you in passing. Folk who are uncomfortable if you are even sitting close to them in a restaurant or public transport. Folk who clearly cannot conceive of a normal social relationship with you. It has never been everyone, but enough to notice. I beleive that it is better now than it has been in the past in the USA, but I have not been to there lately.

But the facts and statistics speak loudly. Women have not even achieved equality in any area (employeability, finances etc..)

For lack of want not for lack of opportunity.

In what sense irrelevant

Because it hurts peoples' politically correct sensibilities, and thus should be ignored, perhaps even censored.

I get that they are cases of racism towards whites such as assuming whites are racist, affirmative action, and what not but the favoritism towards blacks is very small when it is ever there.

A 230 point automatic edge over whites on the SAT (280 over Asians) is small?

Its also basically inconsequential because the situation for blacks is not very good. Most white men don't have to worry about competition from blacks when it comes to higher education or better jobs.

Yeah, but is the situation for blacks unfavorable due to endogenous black underperformance or is it due to white oppression? Most white men don't have to worry about blacks competing for their jobs because of black inadequacy in academic achievement and whatnot, not because they know "the system" will guarantee them success at the expense of blacks.

It is my general impression that humans are not genetically programmed to share the same living space with groups of people who do not look like them. Before the colonization of the New World, the geographically closest people were usually also the physically/genetically closest, so racial friction (but not necessarily cultural friction) was usually nonexistent or minimal. With the colonization of the New World, large numbers of people were obliged to come face to face with people of very different races everyday. The psychological effects of this burden aren't, IMO, well studied.

I'm sorry for if my non-USian point of view offends anyone, but I believe that Affirmative Action is completely racist.

If, on all being equal, someone is favoured because of his race, then it is racism. No matter what. If it benefits blacks or indians it is still racism, because it discriminates whites.

In a society based on equality, everyone should be equal (hello captain obvious!). In my country, if I was the most efficient employee in a company and nonetheless the pay increase went to someone else based on whatever racial grounds, then I could sue the company with a very high chance of winning. I am not worse just because I am white. I did not choose to be white and nobody should be penalized for that.

Really, I cant see the logic. Black people were enslaved centuries ago, so whites have to pay for it for ever? As far as I know, guilt is not inheritable.

It is completely unfair that some people be benefited only because they had the pure luck to have been born in a particular race or group. I can not understand the difference between this and the ancient laws of nobles' prerogatives. It does not matter who people really are, they only care about their pedigrees. How is it different if the pedigree descends from Charlemagne or from an unnamed slave? The principle is the same: benefit the minority and screw the majority, all based on the randomness of fate that decided your place of birth.

On the other hand, maybe my country is not the best country in the world, but at least all citizens are equal before law and all have equal opportunities. Can't afford private universities? Well, you can learn in tax-funded universities. As long as you are a hard-working person you will succeed. And everyone is required to work hard. Being of a particular race does not exclude you from your duties or help you in any way. Nobody is unfairly benefited.

That's the difference between meritocracy and aristocracy. A meritocracy benefits anyone who works. Meritocracy is race-blind. Aristocracy benefits the chosen few, (in this case, the "good" races) against the majority (in this case, whites).

I went to Hunter College of CUNY in the early 1990's and almost all the administration staff were African-American and openly discriminated against White people. Whites were a minority and Blacks felt entitled to discriminate. I reported two administrators for blatant discrimination - via letter to the dean - but never got a call back or any communication from any Hunter staff member to discuss.

Funny though, I took a course on African-American history and the professor was a Kikuyu from Kenya, and set a high standard for grades in his class - reminiscent of the British he so loathed - and African-American students started dropping out of the class, claiming he was racist towards Black people. The top 3 marks in the class went to a Japanese girl, myself and a White girl from the South - the only 3 non-African Americans in the class...

"There is no doubt that men feel oppressed and discriminated against." Typical response to men saying they have problems... "BUT WOMEN HAVE BIGGER PROBLEMS"

Equality should be about choices; not making on choice and complaining because of the tradeoff.

The onus of proof is on the person claiming discrimination It but here's an article invalidating the idea of discrimination to women.http://www.businessinsider.com/actually-the-gender-pay-gap-is-just-a-myth-2011-3?op=1#ixzz1GSepTxxq

A few quotes: "7. Unmarried women who don't have children actually earn more than unmarried men... 8. Women business owners make less than half of what male business owners make... Women In Tech Make More Money And Land Better Jobs Than Men"

To make that claim even more absurd young women OUT EARN young men. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1337294/Young-women-ahead-men-pay-shrinks.html

*Married men work more than single men, ergo men working largely out of responsibility. (Do men have work choices women have?)

*Overall men make more money yet spend less! So men don't even control the wealth they earned themselves.

*Men die younger yet retire later in life!!! I don't care how you divide the work between genders, that is just incredibly messed up.

*Men have worse health yet the (at least American) government spends more money on women's health research and services.

*Men comprise about 95% of all work related death!

*This is fairly obvious but men face discrimination in family court...thus the site father's and families.

*Men face discrimination in criminal courts or women are punished less for the same crime! http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100525090554.htm

So, yes, clearly men aren't discriminated against and should not be talking about any if their problems. (Sarcasm)

"But I think a lot of this has to do with the fact that women tend to avoid math and hard science courses at college. "

Not true. Women start falling behind the instant they step out of University. Including in mathematics and science. Basically as soon as the system that is assessing performances ceases to be relatively consistent and fair.

PS. I later discovered that my local education department had a differential assessment for girls and boys. So a girl with higher grades would not qualify for selective high school when a boy with a lower grade would. This was because they had more all boys schools than all girl schools and it was perceived that girls would slip behind anyway in highschool. In my year my all girl selective high school school got more academic awards than all the others put together.

Gradually the point where girls slip behind has shifted. It used to be primary school, then secondary, then University. Now it is the workplace.

In my mothers school the mathematics teacher permanently expelled ALL the girls from mathematics for talking in class. He just did not want to teach girls.

My grandmother got primary school only.

My great grandmother was a mathematical savant. She never had a day of schooling, she picked it all up working in her own shop.

Society stagnates when organizations are controlled by people just because of how they were born. China dropped from an amazing technological high because of it IMO. It doesnt matter if it is noble inbreds or folk with the right dangly bits. If you are not judging folk fairly you are slipping behind.

On a different note I wonder if the reason feminism always tends to focus at women's inequalities with males at the top (such as men in science or CEO's) while ignoring women's inequalities with men at the bottom (more male homelessness, suicide, incarceration, work related deaths) has to do with hypergamy.

Hypergamy has to with seeking out a spouse of higher socioeconomic status while ignoring those of lower socioeconomic status.

Interesting family background of Mathematical giftedness on the female line. My father's sister and my mother's uncle were Math savants in my family, and my brother is highly gifted in Math.

However, what you are advocating is for Equality of OUTCOME, rather than Equality of OPPORTUNITY - think about it?!

No amount of wishful thinking will ever make men and women equal in outcome, men have much more testosterone in utero giving them a different brain structure than women, making them naturally better ON AVERAGE at math then women as a result - that's just a fact. While in the workplace men tend to do well in hierarchies and both cooperate better with each other than women do, while also willing to strive to put in the extra effort and time to get ahead more than women - due to adult testosterone levels being much higher in men than women. Whereas women tend to compete against each other, and are not willing to strive above and beyond to achieve success.So no amounts of handouts will ever makes the outcome equal for men and women...

"Not true. Women start falling behind the instant they step out of University. Including in mathematics and science. Basically as soon as the system that is assessing performances ceases to be relatively consistent and fair."

'Biases and expectations among adults are often in play when determining which children count as gifted, and fewer boys appear to end up in gifted programs nationally. A 2002 study by the National Academy of Sciences reported that boys were “overrepresented in programs for learning disabilities, mental retardation and emotional disturbance, and slightly underrepresented in gifted programs,” said Bruce A. Bracken, a professor at the College of William & Mary who wrote one of the two exams that the city uses to test gifted children. He said the implications of the study were “disturbing.”'

"But I think a lot of this has to do with the fact that women tend to avoid math and hard science courses at college. "

Not true. Women start falling behind the instant they step out of University. Including in mathematics and science. Basically as soon as the system that is assessing performances ceases to be relatively consistent and fair."

princenuadha got it: "A few quotes: "7. Unmarried women who don't have children actually earn more than unmarried men... 8. Women business owners make less than half of what male business owners make... Women In Tech Make More Money And Land Better Jobs Than Men""

And women just don't have as much riding on making money as do men. Their income is not nearly as vital to attracting a mate as it is for men, which is an understatement. Exacerbating this is women taking time off work to have children before their thirties, if not mid-thirties, or risk going forever childless.

Well PCONROY, thank you very much for illustrating my point so well. That is exactly the problem.

I am quite sure that the folk who decided my great grandmother should not be educated thought it was because women were naturally inferior and therefore it would be a waste. They were wrong as later generations have proven.

I am sure the mathematics teacher thought women were naturally inferior at mathematics and so should not be taught high school mathematics. They were wrong as proven by later generations of high school girls. Mathematics was my favourite subject at school, my sister is a physicist in a particulary advanced field.

When women are given a fair path and assessment they show themselves to be the equal of men.

IMO women work far better together, and with men, than men do with each other. That testosterone makes blokes compete with each other to the detriment of the goal. Mixed teams are therefore better as it reins that mad tendency to be the individual dominant character of the moment, rather than the overall winning team for the long term.

I like working in mixed teams, even ones where I am the only woman. But I can see that teams of largely men are uncomfortable having to restrain language and behaviours that they know women won't tolerate. Plus groups of all men are often easier to lead as a weird kind of pack mentality (blind following) seems to kick in. This is exactly why you need women in your team.

I suspect your son if you have one might have a different view of the role of women in teams. I suggest you ask him about his study teams.

My uncle died in a mine. About a quarter of my family lines are minering lines. If any of the women had applied for a job in the mines they would have been laughed at. Women were never-the-less a major part of the mining economy. None of them ever even saw a mall.

Sounds like you are accustomed to selecting your women from the ornamental class. You get what you pay for.

Well I talked about a lot of problems. I suggested a connection between feminism and hypergamy as a way of understanding things, but thats not what I'm trying to "fix". If I am right about that connection it would help just to recognize it so that gender dialogue doesnt focus at the men on top to the exclusion of men at the bottom. Feminists, like someone acting in Hypergamy, focus on the few powerful men and then see that as masculinity.

As for the problems that should be fixed such as men and retirement, health services, paternal rights and family bias, criminal court bias, etc most corrections would just be the logical thing to do aside from being fair.

"My uncle died in a mine. About a quarter of my family lines are minering lines. If any of the women had applied for a job in the mines they would have been laughed at. Women were never-the-less a major part of the mining economy. None of them ever even saw a mall."

They would be laughed at by men and women because both are responsible for the gender norms. But notice how advocacy falls flat when equality means helping men out for something pretty serious like work related deaths. A lot has changed over the decades and you can't complain about other gender norms then all of a sudden suggest that one is out of our power.

Male disability is a tougher issue but you should know that we have already drastically reduced women dying in child labor (we didn't just accept it) so we should also be working on ways of reducing men's mortality rates, including letting women share the risky work. Not to mention that women have done back breaking work in the past... So their not all frail.

@ AnnieThe South African Mining Charter set a target that women should make up 10% of mining companies’ total workforce by 2009. Only 10% and it wasn't achieved..Maybe you have another idea why the bar is so low when Black women occupy some 30% of desk jobs (and can better shop at the malls)More to the topic though, White women, who are included in the Employment Equity Act as previously disadvantaged on gender basis, are now EXCLUDED.That's reverse racism/sexism.

Old Blog Archive

Dienekes' Anthropology blog is dedicated to human population genetics, physical anthropology, archaeology, and history.

You are free to reuse any of the materials of this blog for non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute them to Dienekes Pontikos and provide a link to either the individual blog entry or to Dienekes Anthropology Blog.

Feel free to send e-mail to Dienekes Pontikos, or follow @dienekesp on Twitter.